Called to the Bar: International Law over Drinks

In this episode of Called to the Bar: International Law Over Drinks, Dr Juliette McIntyre is joined by Mykola Yurlov (Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and Mark Ellis (International Bar Association) to unpack one of the most ambitious current projects in international criminal law: the proposed Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.

Blending personal insight with institutional perspective, the conversation traces the rapid emergence of the tribunal idea following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, and the legal gap it seeks to fill. While the International Criminal Court remains central to global accountability efforts, its jurisdictional limits over aggression have prompted states and legal practitioners to explore alternative mechanisms—reviving, in many respects, a form of accountability not seen since Nuremberg.

The discussion explores how the tribunal is being constructed in practice: from the role of the Council of Europe and the “core group” of states, to difficult negotiations over immunities, jurisdiction, and the possibility of trials in absentia. The episode also addresses institutional tensions, including early resistance from within the ICC system, and the broader political sensitivities of targeting senior state leadership.

Recommendations:

"An Anxious Generation": https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-anxious-generation-9781802063271
"UN Charter - 5 Pillars": https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-94866-4

Music: Sam Barsh, Oils of au lait

In this episode of Called to the Bar: International Law Over Drinks, Ntina Tzouvala (UNSW) is joined by Zohra Ahmed (Boston University School of Law) and Nasia Hadjigeorgiou (University of Central Lancashire, Cyprus) to examine the law, history, and politics of foreign military bases.

Against the backdrop of escalating conflict in the Middle East, the conversation explores how the US and UK came to maintain extensive global networks of military bases: from post-colonial enclaves like Cyprus and the Chagos Archipelago to status of forces agreements (SOFAs) that underpin US bases worldwide. The episode unpacks the legal distinctions between these models and what they reveal about sovereignty, consent, and enduring forms of imperial power.

Drawing on recent developments in international law, including the ICJ’s Chagos Advisory Opinion, the discussion considers whether existing legal frameworks offer meaningful avenues to challenge the continued presence of foreign bases. It also reflects on the evolving uses of these spaces - from warfare to detention - and what they tell us about the relationship between international law, militarism, and political economy.

Recommendations:

-Nasia's EJIL piece: https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/33/4/1125/6825293?guestAccessKey=
-Nasia's blog post: https://verfassungsblog.de/why-us-sovereign-bases-in-greenland-would-violate-international-law/
-Zohra's YJIL piece: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/3712/
-Daniel Immerwahr, How to Hide an Empire: https://www.penguin.com.au/books/how-to-hide-an-empire-9781473545335

Sound production: Jamie Guilfoyle

Music: Sam Barsh, Oils of au lait

In this episode Juliette McIntyre (Adelaide University) is joined by James Devaney (University of Glasgow) and Cecily Rose (Leiden University) to explore the often-overlooked world of evidence and fact-finding in international adjudication.

Why does the International Court of Justice have so few formal rules on evidence? What does it actually do with the mountains of annexes submitted by parties? And what exactly counts as proof in international litigation? Drawing on James’s leading work on ICJ fact-finding and Cecily’s experience across arbitration and international courts, the episode examines the Court’s traditionally reactive approach, recent efforts at reform, and how it compares with more interventionist practices in investment arbitration and human rights courts.

The conversation also unpacks practical issues - from expert evidence and adverse inferences to the strategic dynamics of litigation - offering insights into how international courts construct “facts” in the absence of strict evidentiary frameworks.

Sound production: Jamie Guilfoyle

Music: Sam Barsh, Oils of au lait

In this episode of Called to the Bar: International Law Over Drinks, Ntina Tzouvala (UNSW) is joined by Dr Maria O’Sullivan (Deakin Law School) to unpack the legal frameworks governing the right to protest at a time of increasing global restriction.

Drawing on Maria’s research expertise - spanning international human rights law, domestic law, and public policy - the conversation explores how the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and how those protections are being tested in practice. From escalating state violence to the proliferation of restrictive protest laws, the episode examines the widening gap between formal legal guarantees and lived realities on the ground.

The discussion also reflects on Maria’s broader career in international human rights law, the influence of key mentors, and the challenge of translating international legal norms into domestic contexts.

Recommendations:

Azadeh Dastyari, Maria O’Sullivan, International Law and the Regulation of Protest (2026) https://www.routledge.com/International-Law-and-the-Regulation-of-Protest/Dastyari-OSullivan/p/book/9781032863573

Music: Sam Barsh, Oils of au Lait

In this episode of Called to the Bar: International Law Over Drinks, Tamsin Phillipa Paige is joined by Professor Ben Saul (Sydney Law School; UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights) and Dr Pichamon Yeophantong (Deakin University; Member of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights) to demystify the UN’s Special Procedures system.

What exactly are Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups? How did these mechanisms emerge from the late-1960s human rights movement, and how do they function today within the Human Rights Council system? Drawing on their lived experience as mandate holders, Ben and Pichamon explain the independence, authority, and limitations of these roles: from fact-finding missions and urgent communications, to producing reports that carry the weight of being issued by the UN.

The conversation also explores the practical realities behind the mandates: underfunding, reliance on volunteer labour, political pushback from states, and the delicate balance between independence and institutional affiliation. In a moment of growing authoritarianism and multilateral strain, the episode asks whether Special Procedures are one of the UN’s most powerful, or most precarious, human rights tools.